# Land north of Willies Well, Crawcrook, Ryton (shepherd's hut)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson
- **Authority:** Gateshead (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008659
- **Application reference:** DC/25/00113/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use of land to mixed agricultural and holiday let (sui generis) with a shepherd's hut
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), HE6
- **Development plan policies:** Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy 2015 CS15, CS19, Gateshead Local Plan 2021 MSGP24, MSGP25
- **Main issues:** openness, heritage, VSC
- **Tags:** vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, tourism-accommodation, retrospective, heritage-harm, great-weight-old-wording

## Summary
Retrospective holiday-let shepherd's hut in an open field in the Green Belt, inside Bradley Park Conservation Area and beside a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. Dismissed. The parties agreed it was inappropriate development. It caused moderate openness harm and low-to-moderate heritage harm, against limited tourism benefits, so there were no VSC.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The GB7 exceptions are "broadly consistent with those contained within the previous iteration of the Framework insofar as is relevant to this appeal" (DL ¶5).
- **Openness: moderate harm.** "the walls and roof of the shepherds hut are easily visible from the gate as an isolated manmade structure within this overtly pastoral setting" (DL ¶9); harm in "both spatial and visual terms" (DL ¶10).
- **Heritage (HE6): low to moderate harm** to the RPG setting and the CA, carrying "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶20). DL ¶21 repeats the 2024 wording ("great weight should be given to the asset's conservation") rather than the 2026 HE6(1) "substantial weight". This is a drafting slip that did not affect the outcome.

## Planning balance
GB6(2): "given the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, relative to the modest benefits of the scheme … the harm that has arisen is not clearly outweighed" (DL ¶28).

## What made the difference
A small structure isolated in an open, undeveloped field with heritage sensitivity, set against the negligible benefits of a single let unit. No GB7 exception was argued, so there was no grey belt route to test.

## Transferable points
- Even a small isolated structure in an open pastoral field can cause moderate spatial and visual openness harm (DL ¶9-10).
- Tourism benefits from one small let unit carry only limited weight (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **GB7: fail.** agreed no GB7 exception applies; GB7 list "broadly consistent" with the previous Framework (DL 5-6)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** moderate spatial and visual openness harm from an isolated hut in an open pastoral field (DL 10-11, 27-28)
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low to moderate harm to setting of Bradley Park Grade II RPG and Bradley Park CA; limited public benefits (DL 17-24)
- **E4: benefit (limited weight).** tourism spend from one unit (~2 guests) (DL 23, 28)

## Key facts
- Single shepherd's hut in a hollow in an open, rolling field next to Bradley Park RPG woodland, visible from the field gate and Bradley Hall access road
- Development already carried out; appeal was retrospective
- Parties agreed the development was inappropriate; grey belt not argued

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008659
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/54e12b9a-d285-4398-9b5c-819376852b88

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008659.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.